The Supreme Court has upheld the order requiring Álvaro García Ortiz, former Spanish attorney general, to pay €39,000 in legal costs related to his conviction for revealing secrets concerning Alberto González Amador, the partner of Madrid regional president Isabel Díaz Ayuso. The ruling ends a months-long dispute over the amount, after García Ortiz sought a further reduction following an initial cut from nearly €80,000.
The case concerned the disclosure of an email connected to González Amador during a tax-fraud investigation, as well as the public prosecutor's office's handling of competing accounts about negotiations between González Amador's lawyer and prosecutors. The Supreme Court's Criminal Chamber convicted García Ortiz in Sentencia 1000/2025, dated 9 December 2025. The sentence imposed two years' special disqualification from serving as attorney general. It also set a fine of €7,200, calculated at €20 per day for 12 months, and ordered €10,000 in compensation to González Amador. García Ortiz was the first serving Spanish attorney general reported to have been criminally convicted.
The legal costs became contentious after the court's legal officer initially set them at €79,942, reflecting the full request from González Amador's defense. That request included €64,778.78 in lawyer fees and €13,603.54 in VAT. It also sought €1,560 for the court representative. Both the prosecution and the State Attorney's Office, representing García Ortiz, challenged the figure as excessive and proposed a much lower sum of €4,240. The legal officer later removed charges considered improper and reduced the amount to €39,000. García Ortiz and the prosecution continued to seek a further reduction, which the Supreme Court has now rejected.
In its decision, the court said accepting the State Attorney's proposal would deprive the private prosecution, represented by González Amador, of fair compensation for necessary legal work during the trial. The judges said the work was not superfluous or unnecessary, referring to the criteria under which a convicted party may be exempted from paying costs when legal work is clearly redundant.
The two-year disqualification applies specifically to the office of attorney general and does not remove García Ortiz from Spain's wider public-prosecutor career. The distinction between the institutional post and membership in the prosecutorial service has become part of the case's wider institutional significance. The conviction and its consequences have also fueled political debate about judicial impartiality and claims of partisan use of the courts.
The Unión Progresista de Fiscales (UPF), the association García Ortiz once led, paid the fine and compensation using donations from its members. The legal costs, covering the fees of González Amador's lawyer and court representative, remained unresolved until the Supreme Court ruling. The decision comes amid continuing tensions over high-profile legal cases involving political figures in Spain and scrutiny of the handling of sensitive information and internal investigations. For example, the government's response to internal probes in the Guardia Civil, including Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's support for Mercedes González during an investigation into leaks, has also sparked debate over accountability and legal boundaries. More details on that situation are available in this report on the government's stance during the Guardia Civil internal probe.
Spanish courts determine legal costs in criminal proceedings, which can include lawyer and court-representative fees as well as applicable taxes. Disputes over the amounts can arise in politically sensitive cases. By upholding the €39,000 award, the Supreme Court confirmed that González Amador's private prosecution could recover costs for legal work the judges considered necessary. The case also illustrates the financial and reputational consequences of criminal proceedings for public officials, including when an association helps cover penalties.
